| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/08/2008 01:24:59 PM · #1 |
Bush vetoes a bill that would have banned waterboarding. He says that the CIA has been able to prevent attacks by torturing known terrorist into talking. Where and when these attacks would have been is vague because it is a fabrication!!! In the State of the Union address Bush said they had prevented attacks, and the next day that statement was discredited congress and others on capitol hill.
Here is his BS excuse.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:48:58 PM · #2 |
Well this is going to be moved to the 'Rant' section in no time at all.
Waterboarding doesn't inflict pain, you don't come out with broken bones, you're not bleeding, you're not dead, you're not missing fingernails, you're just inflicted with pure fear. Compared with what terrorists do to their captives, it's like we're just throwing marshmellows our prisoners. I wish people would stop complaining about terrorist's rights and start becoming thankful that their cities aren't being attacked with chemicals and other bombs....like what is happening where the terrorists actually live and have access.
ETA: Looks like somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 13:58:05. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 01:53:05 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Tom:
Well this is going to be moved to the 'Rant' section in no time at all.
Waterboarding doesn't inflict pain, you don't come out with broken bones, you're not bleeding, you're not dead, you're not missing fingernails, you're just inflicted with pure fear. Compared with what terrorists do to their captives, it's like we're just throwing marshmellows our prisoners. I wish people would stop complaining about terrorist's rights and start becoming thankful that their cities are being attacked with chemicals and other bombs like what is happening where the terrorists actually live and have access. |
There is a typical response that I expect.... People who fear. First off, volunteer to be waterboarded and then tell me it's not torture. I don't know how the heck we should be thankful for any of this. As for your last sentence.... what? That is not English.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 02:16:08 PM · #4 |
 AndyMac24, what's you definition of torture? What would be an acceptable means of interrogating a suspect effectively with out physically harming them? |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 02:24:35 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by CNN:
"President Bush's veto will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, said in a statement Friday. "Unless Congress overrides the veto, it will go down in history as a flagrant insult to the rule of law and a serious stain on the good name of America in the eyes of the world."
He noted that the Army field manual contends that harsh interrogation is a "poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the (interrogator) wants to hear." |
What he said. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 03:13:47 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
AndyMac24, what's you definition of torture? What would be an acceptable means of interrogating a suspect effectively with out physically harming them? |
I would say the same way we interrogate non-terrorist is just fine. Making someone fear for there life or well being, even without harming someone is terrorism. That makes us no better than them. And it is in no way more likely to make them tell the truth, quite the opposite. "Tell them what they want to hear and they will leave me the hell alone in my cell" is all they will be thinking. I agree with  scalvert's finding... quite shameful.
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity [thumb]//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture[/thumb]
waterboarding fits in this, and anyone who disagrees should volunteer to have it demonstrated on them (if you don't think it's torture why not?) that will change your mind... believe me.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 03:29:19 PM · #7 |
According to wikipedia waterboarding can result in extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.broken bones and even death.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 03:42:20 PM · #8 |
| I take anything that Ted Kennedy has to say with a grain of salt and actually I think that he is \"a serious stain on the good name of America\", but then again I feel that way about most politicians these days, including Bush. As for the intergation method of waterboarding, I don\'t believe that it is \"tourture\", IF, used properly and with prejudice. I\'m all for using the most effective methods of intergation, which most of the time is probably non-harsh, passive methods. I will venture to say though, that there are those who need to be pushed more and will not cooperate with the more passive methods, water boarding is a non-leathal method that I feel is acceptable as a last ditch effort. As for the reliablitly of the information, they verify all information regardless of the method for which it was obtained anyway, so while the hit or miss percentage may go down if they obtain any information of use then it was worth using that method, imo. I am open minded and would love to know of any studies done on this subject if anyone can provide them. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 03:55:17 PM · #9 |
| Do I want to waterboarded, no. But if I do and I say that it's still ok will you be ok with it still being used? I doubt it. AndyMac24, have you been waterboarded? Since type has as way of missing tone of voice I ask these in a non sarcatice tone. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 03:59:20 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
...if they obtain any information of use then it was worth using that method, imo. |
That's the most common argument of support I've heard, but every international agreement against torture specifically states that exceptional circumstances are no excuse for its practice. Any interrogation method that produces "extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death" *IS* torture no matter how you might rationalize it. Stooping to the level of terrorists damages the world's image of America and thus creates a greater threat than it prevents. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 04:03:01 PM · #11 |
| I guess it all boils down to the kind of people you want to be and the kind of country you want to inhabit. Do you want to be a people that supports de facto torture? Do you want to be a people that makes semantic definitions more important than the reality of what you're allowing your government to do to human beings? Do you want to be the only civilized Western country on the planet that thinks the tools of terrorism are good enough for you, if they're good enough for terrorists? Do you want to be a country so abstractly hypocritcal as to abandon all human compassion even while claiming to be a Christian nation? If you are leading by example, you are teaching terrorists a thing or two, to be sure. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 04:10:56 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Do I want to waterboarded, no. But if I do and I say that it's still ok will you be ok with it still being used? I doubt it. AndyMac24, have you been waterboarded? Since type has as way of missing tone of voice I ask these in a non sarcatice tone. |
I do hate type for that reason, because the reader always puts the tone in... to answer, no I have not. Because I already feel that it is torture but I was at a public demonstration and they took a volunteer who felt it was an ok practice. He changed his mind. As for you, if you were to do it and walk away saying it is not torture then you have an informed opinion about it and I will accept that.
Originally posted by Louis:
I guess it all boils down to the kind of people you want to be and the kind of country you want to inhabit. Do you want to be a people that supports de facto torture? Do you want to be a people that makes semantic definitions more important than the reality of what you're allowing your government to do to human beings? Do you want to be the only civilized Western country on the planet that thinks the tools of terrorism are good enough for you, if they're good enough for terrorists? Do you want to be a country so abstractly hypocritcal as to abandon all human compassion even while claiming to be a Christian nation? If you are leading by example, you are teaching terrorists a thing or two, to be sure. |
Very well put. Thank you. Can some other people outside the US give opinions on what your area says about this??
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 04:36:34 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
...if they obtain any information of use then it was worth using that method, imo. |
That's the most common argument of support I've heard, but every international agreement against torture specifically states that exceptional circumstances are no excuse for its practice. Any interrogation method that produces "extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death" *IS* torture no matter how you might rationalize it. Stooping to the level of terrorists damages the world's image of America and thus creates a greater threat than it prevents. |
Are there documented cases where the US implemented version of water boarding has caused these injuries/death? If so can you direct me to them. I know this causes a problem b/c they might cover it up. I would also like to know the percentage of waterboardings that have injuries and was it due to improper procedure, malice or b/c the procedure itself is flawed. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 04:46:23 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Do you want to be a country so abstractly hypocritcal as to abandon all human compassion even while claiming to be a Christian nation? If you are leading by example, you are teaching terrorists a thing or two, to be sure. |
I don't claim this to be a christian nation, so I don't feel I'm being hypocritical. As for leading by example, it would be a compassionate improvement to their methods. If all the US has to worry about are terrorist waterboarding its' civilians, that they learned from our example, then I think we have come out ahead of the current situation.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 04:49:17 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I take anything that Ted Kennedy has to say with a grain of salt ... |
Regardless whether you like the man or not you should exercise the sense to differentiate from his bullshit and the rest.
"Of presidential candidates like Mr. Giuliani, who say that they are unsure whether waterboarding is torture, Mr. McCain said: âThey should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.â"
McCain says it's torture and I'd say he's 100% expert on the topic.
Look at it this way...
If we claim the right to torture, they have the right to slowly cut off our heads. Fair's fair...right?
Message edited by author 2008-03-08 16:51:29. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 04:53:26 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Are there documented cases where the US implemented version of water boarding has caused these injuries/death? If so can you direct me to them. I know this causes a problem b/c they might cover it up. |
Gee... ya think? What difference does the percentage of injuries or death make... 0% of torture is acceptable by own own laws and signed accords! If you agreed to subjecting yourself to waterboarding, having your fingernails pulled out, sexual humiliation, or threatening by dogs, I'd still consider them torture. All it would change is that I'd consider you nuts for volunteering. ;-) |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 04:55:01 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
McCain says it's torture and I'd say he's 100% expert on the topic. |
McCain voted against this bill, not for it. Although he has said that it is torture, he flip flopped on it once he became the likely nominee.
|
|
|
|
03/08/2008 04:59:32 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
McCain says it's torture and I'd say he's 100% expert on the topic. |
McCain voted against this bill, not for it. Although he has said that it is torture, he flip flopped on it once he became the likely nominee. |
McCain's a lovable nut...isn't he?
I'm not voting for him even though I like him in a "lovable nut" kinda way. For every awesome thing McCain stands for there seems to be an equal and opposite stance on a different issue that annoys me. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 05:02:40 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I take anything that Ted Kennedy has to say with a grain of salt ... |
Regardless whether you like the man or not you should exercise the sense to differentiate from his bullshit and the rest.
"Of presidential candidates like Mr. Giuliani, who say that they are unsure whether waterboarding is torture, Mr. McCain said: âThey should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.â"
McCain says it's torture and I'd say he's 100% expert on the topic.
Look at it this way...
If we claim the right to torture, they have the right to slowly cut off our heads. Fair's fair...right? |
Personally I feel anything that comes from the mouth of Ted Kennedy a load of bullshit and loaded for his own politcial gain and agenda, regardless how true it may be. I respect McCain and his opinon on the matter, and I'm sure I could find someone who went through tourture in their life who would call it otherwise. Slowly cutting one's head off isn't really a fair trade for waterboarding, so no, fair's not fair in that situation. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 05:16:10 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Are there documented cases where the US implemented version of water boarding has caused these injuries/death? If so can you direct me to them. I know this causes a problem b/c they might cover it up. |
Gee... ya think? What difference does the percentage of injuries or death make... 0% of torture is acceptable by own own laws and signed accords! If you agreed to subjecting yourself to waterboarding, having your fingernails pulled out, sexual humiliation, or threatening by dogs, I'd still consider them torture. All it would change is that I'd consider you nuts for volunteering. ;-) |
Yeah that whole destroy the tapes thing is pretty rotten and hopefully fully investigated. I would consider fingernails being pulled out torture, being humiliated and "threatened" with dogs, more of a fraternity hazing and they definitely don't fall into my definition of torture. Do you consider using audio on loop and high frequency as torture? |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 05:30:43 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I would consider fingernails being pulled out torture, being humiliated and "threatened" with dogs, more of a fraternity hazing and they definitely don't fall into my definition of torture. Do you consider using audio on loop and high frequency as torture? |
Your personal definition of torture is irrelevant. Article 17 of the Geneva Convention: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Additional articles basically boil down to this: you must treat prisoners of war as you treat your own soldiers on regular duty. I would hate to think our soldiers live every day under threat of waterboarding or your ideas of fraternity hazing. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 05:44:46 PM · #22 |
| Not to mention that the US executed Japanese officers that waterboarded prisoners in WWII. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 05:54:50 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I would consider fingernails being pulled out torture, being humiliated and "threatened" with dogs, more of a fraternity hazing and they definitely don't fall into my definition of torture. Do you consider using audio on loop and high frequency as torture? |
Your personal definition of torture is irrelevant. Article 17 of the Geneva Convention: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." Additional articles basically boil down to this: you must treat prisoners of war as you treat your own soldiers on regular duty. I would hate to think our soldiers live every day under threat of waterboarding or your ideas of fraternity hazing. |
Sorry to add my opinion, I thought since you added yours I could fill you in where I stand and why I feel the way I do about the situation. 0% of torture is acceptable by own own laws and signed accords! Your right my opinon is irrelevant but I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you but our soldiers face much worse than waterboarding and my idea of a hazing on a dailey basis, that's reality.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Not to mention that the US executed Japanese officers that waterboarded prisoners in WWII |
The US did a lot of things back then that they don't do now, I am failing to see the relevance of how this plays out today. Now if you told me that they executed someone for waterboarding our soldiers today, then I think you would have a point. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 06:02:07 PM · #24 |
| Typically Prisoners of War are recognized as an organized army with uniforms, NOT people that wear the same clothing as the local populace. In fact a soldier in civilian clothing behind enemy lines is treated differently since he is not in his uniform to readily identify him as the enemy. Thus he is treated differently as a spy. |
|
|
|
03/08/2008 06:07:57 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Not to mention that the US executed Japanese officers that waterboarded prisoners in WWII |
The US did a lot of things back then that they don't do now, I am failing to see the relevance of how this plays out today. Now if you told me that they executed someone for waterboarding our soldiers today, then I think you would have a point. |
It plays out today because there is no statute of limitations on the morality of torture. |
|
